linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/8] arm64: parse cpu capacity-dmips-mhz from DT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160615144821.GF5981@e106622-lin>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:48:21 +0100
From:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
	sudeep.holla@....com, lorenzo.pieralisi@....com,
	catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
	morten.rasmussen@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
	sgurrappadi@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/8] arm64: parse cpu capacity-dmips-mhz from DT

On 15/06/16 14:49, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:17:53AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> 
> > +		if (!raw_capacity) {
> > +			raw_capacity = kzalloc(sizeof(*raw_capacity) *
> > +					num_possible_cpus(), GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> kcalloc()?
> 

Right. Will change.

> > +			if (!raw_capacity) {
> > +				pr_err("cpu_capacity: failed to allocate memory"
> > +				       " for raw capacities\n");
> 
> It's normally better to avoid splitting errors message so people can
> grep if they see the error.
> 

Tried to avoid breaking 80 columns. But, we seem to have longer pr_err
strings already. I'll change that.

> > +	} else {
> > +		pr_err("cpu_capacity: missing %s raw capacity "
> > +		       "(fallback to 1024 for all CPUs)\n",
> > +				cpu_node->full_name);
> 
> That's going to complain fairly loudly for all existing DTs isn't it and
> it's kind of redundant if all the cores have the same capacity (which is
> a very common case)?  How about printing an error only if we already
> found one, or printing a single warning at the end if we didn't get
> anything?

Right, I'll change the condition for which pr_err is emitted. I think
the situation for which we care the most about is when we find partial
information in DT.

Thanks,

- Juri